62-Year-Old Mom Gives Birth

[GISRICK]

Blind 62-year-old woman becomes mom...And she is a grandmother. What is your opinion of this? My parents are in the mid-60's and I can't picture them being parents again.

[akip]

as someone who gave birth to a first-and-only child at 40, i think she's bonkers.

[Sushi]

Is there a link for this or anything? I'm still in lazy Sunday morning mode and don't feel like searching for it out in cyberspace.

[markalot]

If she's got long term plans to take care of the child then I have no problem with it. Why is everyone who screams about body rights thinking this is crazy?

[Jumpman]

Honestly, I kinda think it's selfish of the mother. Unless it's was an oops. I mean, the chances of her dying and leaving the kid an orphan at a young age are greatly increased. Think about the burden this kid is going to feel at a relatively young age as this mother gets older and needs more care. There is a good chance the mother will need to be supported by a kid who is not financially or emotionally ready to handle it. She's just plain too old IMHO.

[akip]

If she's got long term plans to take care of the child then I have no problem with it. Why is everyone who screams about body rights thinking this is crazy?

i'm not screaming, just commenting.

as someone who had a baby at the ripe old age of 40, i know what she's doing.

but it's her life.

[Sushi]

Okay, I'm awake now and found a few more details:

62-year-old gives birth to 12th child (from Breaking News (http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/02/18/story245245.html))
18/02/2006 - 08:41:20

A 62-year-old woman has given birth to a healthy 6lb 9oz baby boy, becoming one of the oldest women in the world to successfully bear a child.

The baby is the 12th child of Janise Wulf, from Redding, California, who has been blind since birth. She is a grandmother of 20 and great-grandmother of three.

Family members said the delivery went smoothly on Friday, despite earlier concerns about the mother’s health. Wulf, a diabetic, experienced swelling and higher blood pressure earlier this week, prompting doctors to perform a Caesarean section a week early.

“I believe our only hesitation collectively was her health and her coming through this. Giving birth is hard at any age, in any body, let alone with her being 62,” Wulf’s 28-year-old daughter, Desiree Myers, told the Redding Record Searchlight newspaper.

Myers gave birth to a baby of her own four months ago.

Wulf and her third husband, Scott, 48, named the red-haired boy, Adam Charles Wulf. He follows just three and a half years behind his older brother, Ian.

“I hate to raise one alone, without a sibling,” said Wulf, who was impregnated both times through in vitro fertilisation.

Wulf has given birth to a total of 12 children, although one son died in his 30s and another died at birth with undeveloped lungs. Of her 10 living children, the oldest is 40.

While Wulf isn’t the oldest on record, Friday’s delivery put her among only a handful of senior mothers.

The oldest woman on record to give birth is a 66-year-old Romanian woman who had a Caesarean section January 15, 2005. Adriana Iliescu was aided by artificial insemination, doctors said.

The Guinness Book of World Records also lists two 63-year-old women who have given birth: Rosanna Della Corte of Italy in 1994 and Acheli Keh of California in 1996. News reports, however, list Della Corte’s age at 62 when she gave birth.

The Record Searchlight independently verified Wulf’s age.

Wulf is used to defying the odds. Blind since birth, she was a synchronised swimmer in high school, worked as a piano and organ saleswoman and developed a passion for cooking.

Wulf said on Friday that she considers her late-in-life pregnancy a groundbreaking act for older women.

“Age is a number. You’re as old as you feel,” she said. ”Every time you revolutionise something or you do something different, there’s going to be naysayers.”

*********

Her husband is much younger, which will help. But it raises a lot of issues. Mr. Sushi and I are expecting our first child in a few months (through adoption). I'm 38, he's 51. There is the knowledge that he may not be around when she's an adult, and that can be a frightening and depressing thought. Then again, he could well be around. He father is in his 80s and still healthy. There's nothing to say Mr. Sushi won't be around for another 40 years.

Or you can be like my dear departed friend Ruthie, who had her only child before age 30 and then had a heart attack at 43 and left behind her husband and a 14-year-old son. (I miss her terribly, BTW.)

We don't know when we'll get plucked out from among the living.

[akip]

Blind since birth, she was a synchronised swimmer in high school...

see what a little exercise can do for you? ;)

[purple_octopus]

“I hate to raise one alone, without a sibling,” said Wulf, who was impregnated both times through in vitro fertilisation.
Doesn't look like an "accident", folks. I guess she can do what she wants to, but I highly doubt she was thinking about the kid(s) first. Having a parent die when you're still a child sucks when it's an unexpected accident. Bringing a child into this world on purpose with the high possibility that you will die before it's out of school is nuts. The woman must be in denial of her own mortality or something. I feel sorry for her kids. Even if she lives though their high school years, she won't live much longer. Those kids won't even have a chance to get through college and build their own lives before they have to start worrying about their ailing parents. We shouldn't be surprised, though. Lots of people who have children at any age are certainly not thinking about the kids first when they choose to do so.

[DaHood]

but it's her life.
What about the kid?

[akip]

What about the kid?

you'd think she'd be the one thinking about that first, wouldn't you? especially since she's already got a pack of em.

but with 13-year-olds and drug addicts having babies, it's not all that surprising yet another mother hasn't considered all the angles.

maybe she thinks god has a bigger plan...or just that her own kids are gonna fill in as surrogates? :confused:

[akip]

all i know is, god forbid my reproductive capability lasts that long...just the thought makes me cringe.

[markalot]

Honestly, I kinda think it's selfish of the mother. Unless it's was an oops. I mean, the chances of her dying and leaving the kid an orphan at a young age are greatly increased. Think about the burden this kid is going to feel at a relatively young age as this mother gets older and needs more care. There is a good chance the mother will need to be supported by a kid who is not financially or emotionally ready to handle it. She's just plain too old IMHO.

Define selfish?

Everything we do is selfish, unless you want to lie about it. This kid has a huge family with the older siblings who can act as a parent. Most of us come from traditional families where the parents are the main care givers and we have a hard time imagining any other relationship.

But to call an act selfish? Of course it's selfish!

I went downstairs this morning and had breakfast. Very selfish of me. I go to work to earn money to buy stuff and care for my family. A selfless act? Hardly.

[indigobunting]

At least she's gettin' it!?

[akip]

At least she's gettin' it!?

artificial insemination.

[indigobunting]

artificial insemination.
Well, it was a nice thought anywho?

I'd like to think that I'd be gettin' it at 62.

[purple_octopus]

Her husband is much younger, which will help. But it raises a lot of issues. Mr. Sushi and I are expecting our first child in a few months (through adoption). I'm 38, he's 51. There is the knowledge that he may not be around when she's an adult, and that can be a frightening and depressing thought. Then again, he could well be around. He father is in his 80s and still healthy. There's nothing to say Mr. Sushi won't be around for another 40 years.
Regardless, you and Mr. Sushi are giving a better life to a child who has already been brought into the world under less-than-ideal conditions. That's very different from choosing to bring yet another child into the world, knowing that you probably won't see them into adulthood. If this woman and her husband had adopted children at this stage of their lives (instead of going through lengthy, expensive in vitro procedures to make their own), I would be commending. There are far too many children in this world without parents who love them. Caring for children who are already here when you're in your 60s and making new kids in your 60s are two completely different things.

[DaHood]

Define selfish?
selfish |'selfi SH | adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure : I joined them for selfish reasons.

I went downstairs this morning and had breakfast. Very selfish of me. I go to work to earn money to buy stuff and care for my family.
I'm sure that horrible things happen to other people directly because of these 'selfish' acts. :rolleyes:

[DaHood]

Regardless, you and Mr. Sushi are giving a better life to a child who has already been brought into the world under less-than-ideal conditions. That's very different from choosing to bring yet another child into the world, knowing that you probably won't see them into adulthood. If this woman and her husband had adopted children at this stage of their lives (instead of going through lengthy, expensive in vitro procedures to make their own), I would be commending. There are far too many children in this world without parents who love them. Caring for children who are already here when you're in your 60s and making new kids in your 60s are two completely different things.
Ditto.
321

[Homsar]

I don't think this is either good or bad. There's always the risk of birth defects, but does that mean we shouldn't try? I don't think so. As long as they raise the kid right, I don't have a problem with it.

[markalot]

selfish |'selfi SH | adjective (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure : I joined them for selfish reasons.


I'm sure that horrible things happen to other people directly because of these 'selfish' acts. :rolleyes:


So what do you (anyone) do that is not chiefly concerned with your own profit or pleasure?

I don't buy the 'lack of consideration for others' bit. What did she do that lacks consideration for others?

[Homsar]

What did she do that lacks consideration for others?

I'm sure that if she gave birth to a deformed or mentally damaged baby, people would accuse the woman of being irresponsible and selfish.

But I have good news!

The baby is healthy, so it's really a non-issue.

[purple_octopus]

I'm sure that if she gave birth to a deformed or mentally damaged baby, people would accuse the woman of being irresponsible and selfish.

But I have good news!

The baby is healthy, so it's really a non-issue.
I'd bet a dollar that you are in your late teens/early 20s and probably have two relatively healthy, living parents.

Just sayin'. Homsar, I think you might have a different opinion if you graduated high school only to adopt the responsibility of caring for your ailing, elderly parents. Usually kids don't have to worry about putting their parents into a home (or burying them) until they're in their 40s, 50s or later. After they get educations, get married, start having kids, and have built their own life. This couple won't be around to see their grandkids (from these last couple kids anyway), they might not be around to see their kids get married, or be a part of any of the other milestone life experiences where their kids will always feel like they're missing out because mom and/or dad isn't there to share it with them. And this couple knew this before they had them. It won't be one of life's unexpected tragedies when mom and dad are missing in the picture, because mom and dad knew they wouldn't be there for the kids before they were even born. They did it on purpose, whether they realize it or not.

[akip]

I'd bet a dollar that you are in your late teens/early 20s and probably have two relatively healthy, living parents.

Just sayin'. Homsar, I think you might have a different opinion if you graduated high school only to adopt the responsibility of caring for your ailing, elderly parents. Usually kids don't have to worry about putting their parents into a home (or burying them) until they're in their 40s, 50s or later. After they get educations, get married, start having kids, and have built their own life.

that kid is gonna have to grow up fast, for sure.

[despondent]

I'd bet a dollar that you are in your late teens/early 20s and probably have two relatively healthy, living parents.

Just sayin'. Homsar, I think you might have a different opinion if you graduated high school only to adopt the responsibility of caring for your ailing, elderly parents. Usually kids don't have to worry about putting their parents into a home (or burying them) until they're in their 40s, 50s or later. After they get educations, get married, start having kids, and have built their own life. This couple won't be around to see their grandkids (from these last couple kids anyway), they might not be around to see their kids get married, or be a part of any of the other milestone life experiences where their kids will always feel like they're missing out because mom and/or dad isn't there to share it with them. And this couple knew this before they had them. It won't be one of life's unexpected tragedies when mom and dad are missing in the picture, because mom and dad knew they wouldn't be there for the kids before they were even born. They did it on purpose, whether they realize it or not.My siblings and I had to put our father in a home last year. I'm the oldest of my siblings at 33. We're all a little ticked off at him because he didn't take care of himself in his earlier years so we are having to do it now. Not only did he not take care of himself, he was in no postion to be a parent. The same goes for our mother. But that's not unusual for a dysfunctional family. I have no doubt that this woman selfishly wanted a child to fill an emotional hole.

[indigobunting]

I have no doubt that this woman selfishly wanted a child to fill an emotional hole.
In all reality it is selfish. When contemplating parenthood, one must think waaaaay ahead. When people don't plan and the reality of the responsibility hits, then "wham" their outta there. Or just find a dandy reason to not get along or something along those lines. Am I right? No?

[despondent]

In all reality it is selfish. When contemplating parenthood, one must think waaaaay ahead. When people don't plan and the reality of the responsibility hits, then "wham" their outta there. Or just find a dandy reason to not get along or something along those lines. Am I right? No?
In my case, my father detached rather than deal with the responsibility. My mother became frustrated and took out her frustrations on us in the form of abuse. I've forgiven them now...they didn't know any better. They had a lot of (and still do) unresolved emotional baggage. I see people all the time get into relationships and even marriage out of the same selfish needs too. Marriage and parenthood requires unconditional, selfless love. You can't give it away if you yourself don't have it.

[indigobunting]

In my case, my father detached rather than deal with the responsibility. My mother became frustrated and took out her frustrations on us in the form of abuse. I've forgiven them now...they didn't know any better. They had a lot of (and still do) unresolved emotional baggage. I see people all the time get into relationships and even marriage out of the same selfish needs too. Marriage and parenthood requires unconditional, selfless love. You can't give it away if you yourself don't have it.
I completely agree. I, myself have issues with my parents. I only lived with mine a few years out of my childhood and have a longer story than I want to tell. But, know this, to all who have a child, are having a child or are contemplating, think it through. Would you like your child to have the same distain that I have towards my parents? Would you even want to have to be forgiven for not being there, not being involved, or selfishly trying to fill some void out of convienence?

[Sovrana]

I completely agree. I, myself have issues with my parents. I only lived with mine a few years out of my childhood and have a longer story than I want to tell. But, know this, to all who have a child, are having a child or are contemplating, think it through. Would you like your child to have the same distain that I have towards my parents? Would you even want to have to be forgiven for not being there, not being involved, or selfishly trying to fill some void out of convienence?


Believe me when I say I am sorry you have had this experience. I just think we have to be careful when we assume that this woman is being selfish or has not thought this through. Afterall, she's in her 60s. She has other children. It seems more obvious that she has in fact throught this through completely AND opted to do it through invitro fertilization...a procedure that is not cheap nor easy to go through.

[purple_octopus]

Believe me when I say I am sorry you have had this experience. I just think we have to be careful when we assume that this woman is being selfish or has not thought this through. Afterall, she's in her 60s. She has other children. It seems more obvious that she has in fact throught this through completely AND opted to do it through invitro fertilization...a procedure that is not cheap nor easy to go through.
If she did indeed think of all this ahead of time, that's even worse, IMO. It means she realizes she'll be placing this burden on her kids, and just doesn't care. I'd rather think she's in denial of her mortality, or is just oblivious.

[akip]

hard to imagine a kid with a 62-to-80-year-old blind mother (that's birth to 18 years old) not running amok.

let's hope that kid is the quiet, placid type.

[akip]

If she did indeed think of all this ahead of time, that's even worse, IMO. It means she realizes she'll be placing this burden on her kids, and just doesn't care. I'd rather think she's in denial of her mortality, or is just oblivious.

or she counts on dumping him on her other offspring.


even with family, it's tough coming up with a guardian in your will--- one you can really count on raising your child like it was their own.

[REMgirl]

I saw this story on the news today. I was taken aback, but it's her life, her family and her second in vitro pregnancy, so she apparently knew what she was in for, as was her family. In vitro is an involved process and I'm sure her family was well aware of what she was getting herself into, as well as them.

In my life, I'm finding it difficult to cope with being in the middle. I'm in the "sandwich generation", one that is raising my own kids as well as caring for aging parents. My husband's father, who was divorced from my husband's mom, lived alone and didn't take care of himself. He developed Alzheimer's and other physical ailments and despite our constant care, he had to be placed in a nursing home. He needed us daily and we gave him all our attention. He died a couple of years ago, and sadly, we were relieved when he did finally die. We cared for him out of love and respect, and we know we'll have to do it again with my parents and Dan's mom and her husband. But it's really difficult to manage these different levels of family and the inevitable illnesses and ailments.

I assume the grandmother who just had her baby has made arrangements for the care of this child. Nobody gets a guarantee of the amount of years we get. I hope for her children's sake that she has made the allowances for them when she's gone.

[REMgirl]

Well, we aren't really "rich" at all; most of my father-in-law's expenses were covered by his retirement funds and Medicaire. I have one son in college and two more in high school, and I'm pinching pennies so hard that Lincoln is always squealing. All I can hope for is that when the time comes for Dan and me to devote time to the other parents, we can cope with the emotional and physical stress that comes with that care. It's more draining than I ever expected.

My mom just went through over a year of medical problems with her heart and my dad was just diagnosed with prostate cancer. Dan's mom is okay, but her husband is manic-depressive and is refusing his meds now.

The road ahead looks pretty rocky. But I would not change my decision to have children. I love them and enjoy being with them. It's just one of those facts of life to get used to. With people living longer lives, it's bound to happen.

[indigobunting]

Believe me when I say I am sorry you have had this experience. I just think we have to be careful when we assume that this woman is being selfish or has not thought this through. Afterall, she's in her 60s. She has other children. It seems more obvious that she has in fact throught this through completely AND opted to do it through invitro fertilization...a procedure that is not cheap nor easy to go through.
Yes, I think an open-minded view is the civil route. Let's look at the big picture. We are all human, we all have emotions and the capacity to love, that's if we're normal. But think of this, being a child, loving your parent and realizing mortality for the first time. People, as they age, don't keep hold of the childhood emotions/memories. Remember those early traumatic memories? Whether it be the death of a pet, moving, that first opposite sex friend w/ awkward attachments? Do you understand? Do you remember? I, for one have lived with a woman and children. I had a lasting effect on their memories and lives. If you knew you what effect you would have on a child before it was born, would you be leary then? Would you be biased? I'm sure that would effect anyone's decision before they followed through purposely.

[akip]

In my life, I'm finding it difficult to cope with being in the middle. I'm in the "sandwich generation", one that is raising my own kids as well as caring for aging parents. My husband's father, who was divorced from my husband's mom, lived alone and didn't take care of himself. He developed Alzheimer's and other physical ailments and despite our constant care, he had to be placed in a nursing home. He needed us daily and we gave him all our attention. He died a couple of years ago, and sadly, we were relieved when he did finally die. We cared for him out of love and respect, and we know we'll have to do it again with my parents and Dan's mom and her husband. But it's really difficult to manage these different levels of family and the inevitable illnesses and ailments.


yep. it's all-consuming when you're the one on the front line, as my brother is. my mother did take care of herself, yet got parkinson's disease, no one knows why. so for six years now my brother and i have been struggling to manage this stubborn, but vulnerable, woman in her disease, from the first step of convincing her to stop driving, all the way to the gut-wrenching decision to move her into a skilled nursing facility. it takes a lot of maturity and strength to deal with this stuff...you don't have time to think of yourself. i'm just grateful i was grown up enough to deal with it.

chances are, this kid's older siblings will be the ones doing the heavy lifting during the mother/grandmother's declining years, but it would be interesting to find out how having a parent who was nothing but elderly in all his memories will affect his view of things.

[akip]

With people living longer lives, it's bound to happen.

longer, yet paradoxically less healthy, lives, and needing much assistance when elderly, is the trend.

[indigobunting]

I want a bumper sticker that says Me and My Money Go Toward Caring For My Aging Mother.
Self expression in the modern age.

[Sovrana]

If she did indeed think of all this ahead of time, that's even worse, IMO. It means she realizes she'll be placing this burden on her kids, and just doesn't care. I'd rather think she's in denial of her mortality, or is just oblivious.


I know I have said this before, but I happen to come from a very large family. Rather it was my mom who was the oldest of 20 children. Though I grew up with at least half of them. I mention this because there has never once in our family been a time when child bearing was discouraged. Not because of age, money, or any of the other reasons that are often cited. Even though many times brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins would called on the pick up the slack at times. Basically, kids have never been considered a burden to anyone in our family.

For those of us who have children, we know the risks, the sacrifices, the difficulties, and the joys of parenting. But we know them from our own perspective, not hers or her family's. And frankly p-o, I'm not sure from what vantage point you speak to this. You have no children, and so pardon me, but what do you know?

[akip]

I want a bumper sticker that says Me and My Money Go Toward Caring For My Aging Mother.

one of the reasons i want somebody to push me out on an iceberg, with my ipod and a six pack, when i hit the stage when i can't take care of myself anymore.

my kid is gonna be driving around with that bumper sticker.

[REMgirl]

I'm so sorry for you, CG, and your situation. I know from experience what it feels like to know that you are responsible and it's really not fair, but what else is there?

Akip, I hear what you're saying, too. My husband and I are the two kids who stayed in our hometown. All the "smart" siblings on both sides of the family have moved away. We are the last of the caregivers and that's it.

Dan's dad died a terrible death and I'm scared shitless that we are going to have to face it over and over again. At least so far the other parents are in their right minds (except Dan's stepdad) and they are still highly functioning. Dan's dad's illness and death were a life lesson for us in many ways. We found that we are basically on our own and will have to learn how to juggle three generations at once.

Dan and I have decided we want Dr Kevorkian out of prison when it gets close to time for us to go...before we lose our minds, that is.

[indigobunting]

I And frankly p-o, I'm not sure from what vantage point you speak to this. You have no children, and so pardon me, but what do you know?
If I may interject, life experience has play in opinion. Hypothetically, she could have lived with a man (or woman for that matter) that had a child. Open your view.

[Sovrana]

If I may interject, life experience has play in opinion. Hypothetically, she could have lived with a man (or woman for that matter) that had a child. Open your view.

I'm afraid I make claim to the knowledge of a woman who has bore the children herself. I mean, this is what this discussion is about....a woman who had a child...not one who has lived with someone who has had one.

[despondent]

this will seem completely backwards to most people but in my eyes the ability to create and the ability to destroy go hand in hand, one cannot exist without the other.


Since when did you become Zen? :p

[markalot]

I can't believe how people with such a narrow view of life can possibly judge...

Oh yes I can ... liberals ... or is it progressive.

Whatever happened to a womans right to choose?

Oh yea, abortion isn't selfish, it's a selfless act ... we were thinking of the child. Christ some of you people are poster children for Wrong Inc.

[despondent]

I know I have said this before, but I happen to come from a very large family. Rather it was my mom who was the oldest of 20 children. Though I grew up with at least half of them. I mention this because there has never once in our family been a time when child bearing was discouraged. Not because of age, money, or any of the other reasons that are often cited. Even though many times brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins would called on the pick up the slack at times. Basically, kids have never been considered a burden to anyone in our family.

For those of us who have children, we know the risks, the sacrifices, the difficulties, and the joys of parenting. But we know them from our own perspective, not hers or her family's. And frankly p-o, I'm not sure from what vantage point you speak to this. You have no children, and so pardon me, but what do you know?
We were ALL at some point a child ourselves. I'm sure there were many times where my parents were joyed to be parents. It was all they really had going for them that they could look upon with any positive outlook. Therefore, they had no balance in their life and that imbalance was transmitted to myself and my siblings. I remember that a lot of the positive moments in their lives were vicarious through us children. I was an over achiever in high school because of that. Yet, the drive to succeed in school was to please my parents and not myself and led to a serious case of burnout that ultimately caused me to drop out of college. Of course, it's all 20/20 in hindsight. Foresight is golden.

[akip]

Dan and I have decided we want Dr Kevorkian out of prison when it gets close to time for us to go...before we lose our minds, that is.

five days a week i talk to sick elderly people and their families. it's the cognitive impairment that complicates matters enormously for these patients and their caregivers. it's pretty heart-breaking; sometimes a wife will tell me they are just at the end of their rope, they have absolutely no help, and they can't do it anymore. like somebody said earlier, some family members just split (my one brother won't have anything to do with any of it---doesn't even wanna talk about it) and the ones who are responsible have the whole thing on their shoulders.

well, i hope good karma comes back to you for doing the right thing. makes you understand what it's all about ultimately.

[Sushi]

We all keep talking about the mother here, but she has a husband who is only 48--while it's a bit older than most people are when they have second children, it is by no means "old." The article said this is her third husband. Perhaps he wanted biological children? Maybe she went through the expense and discomfort of fertility treatments (first hand experience--they aren't fun) for him. Part of the reason Mr. Sushi agreed to adopt an infant rather than an older child was because of me, even though he's a good bit old than I. Realistically, I'm only going to get one shot at motherhood. If I only have the opportunity to parent one child in this lifetime, I'd like to be able to start with an infant, to have the opportunity to teach my child and watch her grow from baby to toddler to little kid to tweener to teen to adult. I want to be there for all those stages of her life. Maybe that's what her husband wanted too. And maybe that's what she's given him. In a sense, it's what my husband has given to me, and I cannot fault her for that.

[purple_octopus]

And frankly p-o, I'm not sure from what vantage point you speak to this. You have no children, and so pardon me, but what do you know?
I don't have children because I thought of the potential children first, and made the best decision for them. Most people don't think ahead, they just have them. I know what the average life expectancy is, and I know what kind of physical problems people have as they age. I also know that I would not have wanted to deal with putting a parent in a nursing home when I was just out of high school. I also know what it's like to live most of my childhood without one of my parents. It's shitty, and I would never do that to a child ON PURPOSE. You don't have to have children to know that you should put your child first, even before you have them (or even if it means you don't have them). Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand what it is to put others before yourself.

[akip]

maybe they're all remarkable people. but maybe they're just f-king loons. ;)

[frizgolf]

I don't understand how anybody would have a problem with this. Consider all the people who are in good health, normal age, in a loving relationship....then have kids and are completely horrible parents. Just try to go to the movies without some jerk kid ruining it. So I fully support an old blind woman's and oldish dude's right to screw up some poor kids life like so many others have done. I also think this sport-pregnancy stuff is rather funny, so I am glad I had something funny to think about today.
Welcome aboard, eh?
Carry on. No derail here.

[REMgirl]

Face it, life is a crap shoot. None of us gets a certificate with a guarantee that we get what we want, live how long we want to, have money or not. Life is life.

My husband and I got married out of college after dating through high school, so we knew each other quite well. We both worked and saved and planned to start a family. Over the next seven years, I lost two pregnancies and was considering fertility treatments when I finally got pregnant. We were thrilled.

Three years later that precious little boy Nick was diagnosed with leukemia. I had another son aged 18 months by that time, and he lost some quality parent-time while we juggled work and hospital stays and learning how to care for a child with a life-threatening illness. After Nick began to get better, we had a third child. It may repulse some of you, but I was afraid Nick would die and Michael would be left an only child, and I couldn't bear it.

Life happens. I couldn't go back to work with my son sick and I lost my job. We never would have expected that our lives would spin so wildly out of our control, but we just took one day at a time. It's the way things go.

Now that little boy is a freshman at OU. My other kids are in high school. We don't have a lot of stuff, but I don't care. My kids are great, they're smart, and they are proof of the love my husband and I share.

So in addition to grousing about the times I'll spend with aging, ill, parents, I can say my life has been richer for having my kids. It's a balance. :)

[Sovrana]

You don't have to have children to know that you should put your child first, even before you have them (or even if it means you don't have them).

What makes you think she has not done this...put her kids before herself?

p-o I've read your comments on these boards long enough to strongly suspect that the "burden" of which you speak is not one you fear is placed on her kids, but based on the fear that if this woman, and women like her (old or somehow incapable by your standards) would be a burden on you via the taxes you pay.

[akip]

this story still doesn't make sense to me.

but then i just thought of another possible plot angle. just maybe this woman, 14 years older than her husband, was feeling insecure about losing him to someone younger, someone fertile.

so she goes for the same thing women have done since the beginning of time to keep a man.

well, it's just as plausible as saying, wow, i'm getting really old now, i'll just have another baby!!! woopee!

[purple_octopus]

What makes you think she has not done this...put her kids before herself?
Because if she did, she would have considered the impact of forcing her children to either bury her or make serious decisions about her well-being long before any person should have to. And if she did consider this, and she had them anyway, then she just doesn't care. Which is worse.

p-o I've read your comments on these boards long enough to strongly suspect that the "burden" of which you speak is not one you fear is placed on her kids, but based on the fear that if this woman, and women like her (old or somehow incapable by your standards) would be a burden on you via the taxes you pay.
There she goes "reading minds" again. Really, you should start a 900 number. :rolleyes:

It's just soooo cute how you make shit up when you don't have anything relevant or meanful to say.

[indigobunting]

It's officially a rant now. It seems (in this discussion) that there is a division of opinion. Taking the diplomatic route, I would have to say that I can't understand why there isn't any bias in this? I "do" understand both view's, but it's secondary.

third person;The third person point of view is the most common for writing, but choosing this point of view is a little more complex than simply writing "he," "she" or "they" to describe the action. There are three main kinds of third-person narrators, with many possible variations of each.

[Shlep]

You have no children, and so pardon me, but what do you know?

I personally have also never been dunked head-first into a vat of rotten fish heads, yet I think I can posit that the experience would be unpleasant and hence one I'd be likely to forgo if offered the opportunity.

I've never had children, yet I think I can logically assume that having kids is bad under a variety of circumstances. I'd not want to have kids if I was unemployed, neck-deep in debt, undergoing chemotherapy, or any number of other things.

I've also been around long enough to watch a number of my friends marry and have offspring of their own. I don't need to deal with comforting a baby in the middle of the night, or early A.M. feedings, of lavishing the sort of attention on a child that they generally seem to need to pass through their formative years well-adjusted any more than I need to chase the little crumb-snatcher around and keep an eye on them constantly to know, through vicarious experience, that bringing a child into this world and raising it, especially in the beginning, is a daunting task.

It therefore follows that I don't have to have kids to know that deliberately going through the process of in vitro fertilization to get yourself impregnated at an age when you're about ready to qualify for senior citizen discounts and well in excess of twice the age at which pregnancy carries significant risks to the fetus *AND* saddled with your own special needs (resulting from blindness) is perhaps not the smartest thing to do.

Think about it, Sovrana: this woman is going to be pushing 80-- EIGHTY YEARS OLD-- if she does in fact live that long when her kid is getting ready to graduate high school. Chances are she's going to need all sorts of attention (what with being blind *and* geriatric) when her child is just beginning to truly start their life. Is that the sort of burden you ought to place on a child?

[indigobunting]

Now it's gone over the top.

[Phreon]

What makes you think she has not done this...put her kids before herself?

p-o I've read your comments on these boards long enough to strongly suspect that the "burden" of which you speak is not one you fear is placed on her kids, but based on the fear that if this woman, and women like her (old or somehow incapable by your standards) would be a burden on you via the taxes you pay.

I don't recall P.O. mentioning the financial aspect, but since you brought it up...

Given the odds and statistics, why should the taxpayer potentially have to cough up cash because a blind, diabetic woman in her 60s decided she was going to have yet another kid?

How many kids are enough? It seems to me that some women get so wrapped up in their "mother" identity that they'll do anything to maintain it, no matter how ill advised. I can't find any other rationale that can explain the lengths women will go to in order to justify why they need another kid, even if they're destitude, broke or old enough that carrying a child is dangerous to both mother and infant.

Explain how a blind, 62 year old diabetic woman is putting her unborn child's best interest at heart by planning such a risky pregnancy? The odds were better that the kid would've wound up stillborn or disabled; it's a miracle the it's healthy.

But what of the father? Surely he can continue to raise the kids after Grandma Mommy is dead? Of course not, motherhood is such a protected sacred right in our country and fathers are merely sperm producers. Culture and law go to great length to promote this.

I blame the mother AND the father equally, because I believe the optimal setting for a child is with two parents. As such, that both decided this was a good idea indicates their lack of insight and forthought. I rate this couple up there with otherwise barren couples who think it's God's will for them to have 6 kids through artificial insemination.

If you believe in God, It was his will you DON'T have kids. You fucked up!"

Phreon

[akip]

Now it's gone over the top.

actually, i think it's just now getting interesting...

[akip]

How many kids are enough? It seems to me that some women get so wrapped up in their "mother" identity that they'll do anything to maintain it, no matter how ill advised. I can't find any other rationale that can explain the lengths women will go to in order to justify why they need another kid, even if they're destitude, broke or old enough that carrying a child is dangerous to both mother and infant.



it's certainly possible that this is an element as well, together with a couple other irrational motivations.

sorry, all you venerable earth mothers. i think having a kid at 62 is nutty, and you have to look toward the nutty for explanation.

[REMgirl]

When I think of how physically exhausting it was to chase my kids around when I was in my early thirties, I can't even pretend I could do it now. No way could I be lifting and toting a baby or toddler. :p

[purple_octopus]

I don't recall P.O. mentioning the financial aspect, but since you brought it up...
Yeah, that's because I didn't. It's not relevant to my point. Sovrana is well known for fabricating bullshit when she has no logical counterpoint to what you actually said.

[the happy prole]

I can't believe how people with such a narrow view of life can possibly judge...

Oh yes I can ... liberals ... or is it progressive.

hehehe. You might want to play a little game of "match the post with the poster."

[Nellie Bly]

sorry, all you venerable earth mothers. i think having a kid at 62 is nutty, and you have to look toward the nutty for explanation.

I concur. There is no way I'm having another child if I'm over 35, if we want one that badly we'll adopt.

If you think having a baby will stop your younger husband from leaving you for a woman closer to his own age, you're a nutter. Plus, I don't know how a 62 year-old body can handle the delivery, the recovery, then the months of sleep deprivation involved with having a child. One would think it would almost make her sicker...there comes a point when you have to leave well enough alone and she passed that point ages ago. I don't know if she's being selfish or just plain stupid, but either way I don't think she thoroughly thought it all through. I hope she's like my SO's grandparents and survives into her 90's so she can see this child grow up and begin his life away from the nest.

[Sovrana]

Yeah, that's because I didn't. It's not relevant to my point. Sovrana is well known for fabricating bullshit when she has no logical counterpoint to what you actually said.

My counterpoint is that you have absolutely no way to know how much these two love their children. You have no way to determine how much thought was put into it. And I maintain that since you have not had children, you are way out of line here to implicate the love and care of any woman who has or who would choose to.


And I find it rather entertaining that you accuse me of mind-reading everytime I nail it. The financial aspect is not only relevant to your point, but by all you have ever posted on these boards, it is relevant to every fabric of your being. It's all about you....and the burden that others place on you.


I personally have also never been dunked head-first into a vat of rotten fish heads, yet I think I can posit that the experience would be unpleasant and hence one I'd be likely to forgo if offered the opportunity.

I've never had children, yet I think I can logically assume that having kids is bad under a variety of circumstances. I'd not want to have kids if I was unemployed, neck-deep in debt, undergoing chemotherapy, or any number of other things.

I've also been around long enough to watch a number of my friends marry and have offspring of their own. I don't need to deal with comforting a baby in the middle of the night, or early A.M. feedings, of lavishing the sort of attention on a child that they generally seem to need to pass through their formative years well-adjusted any more than I need to chase the little crumb-snatcher around and keep an eye on them constantly to know, through vicarious experience, that bringing a child into this world and raising it, especially in the beginning, is a daunting task.

It therefore follows that I don't have to have kids to know that deliberately going through the process of in vitro fertilization to get yourself impregnated at an age when you're about ready to qualify for senior citizen discounts and well in excess of twice the age at which pregnancy carries significant risks to the fetus *AND* saddled with your own special needs (resulting from blindness) is perhaps not the smartest thing to do.

You have this tendency also Shlep. psst! This pregnancy, has nothing to do with you.

[Sovrana]

Think about it, Sovrana: this woman is going to be pushing 80-- EIGHTY YEARS OLD-- if she does in fact live that long when her kid is getting ready to graduate high school. Chances are she's going to need all sorts of attention (what with being blind *and* geriatric) when her child is just beginning to truly start their life. Is that the sort of burden you ought to place on a child?


I have thought about it. I understand better than you what she faces. What burden is she placing on this child? She's blind, so she shouldn't have children? She's older than you so she shouldn't have children? The child (with a wealth of siblings) may be forced to care for this parent? That's what children do...that's what parents do...that's what people do...care for others.

Is it such a burden to care for loved ones?

[Sushi]

Is it such a burden to care for loved ones?
No. But I know that caring for my mom while she was dying was difficult enough when I was 34 and ostensibly a mature adult; I can't imagine how difficult it would be at 18. But again, I'm not part of her family. I don't know her husband (who still seems conspicuously absent in much of this conversation). I don't know if he wanted children even more than she did. Since I don't know these things or these people, I can't pass judgement on their actions. I've gone through a HELL of a lot in the past six years in order to have a child, and I'm not even there yet. I do understand the desire. But I don't think I'd want to have one at age 62--but that's only my choice.

[jneale]

We all keep talking about the mother here, but she has a husband who is only 48--

Bingo - the old girl has a young husband & a healthy body - she doesn't sound like the typical blue hair - I really doubt someone with this kinda background took this decision lightly.

I've got male employees who have several baby mommas & bastard children less than months in age apart (I get to deal with their child support garnishments) I had one recently who quit when I started taking support out of his check "I'm not working to give money to that bitch."

Who cares that this old broad popped out another one - sounds like she has spawned a gigantic tribe to give the kid a sense of family.

There are many other people to take to task for breeding irresponsibly - this woman ain't one of them.

[jneale]

Blind since birth, she was a synchronised swimmer in high school


I've still got better than 20/20 vision & fuck if I still forget where I am @ smash into the end of the pool while swimming backstroke laps.

[akip]

Bingo - the old girl has a young husband & a healthy body -

no, she's diabetic, though i'm sure they were watching her blood sugar like hawks before and during her pregnancy.

[jneale]

no, she's diabetic, though i'm sure they were watching her blood sugar like hawks before and during her pregnancy.
ok, missed that - but still - it doesn't sound like she had the baby to get extra food stamps

[akip]

ok, missed that - but still - it doesn't sound like she had the baby to get extra food stamps

...not if she went through in-vitros for two kids. that shit's expensive!

oh, and btw, i have a little factoid that should excite markalot---

some european countries, including france, outlaw artificial insemination for women over 50.

let's throw a little gasoline on this flame. :p

[Phreon]

I have thought about it. I understand better than you what she faces. What burden is she placing on this child? She's blind, so she shouldn't have children? She's older than you so she shouldn't have children? The child (with a wealth of siblings) may be forced to care for this parent? That's what children do...that's what parents do...that's what people do...care for others.

Is it such a burden to care for loved ones?

How is it that your limited experience always trumps everyone else's? There is a reality beyond yours; why do you think your understanding is universal and all knowing?

Is it love or selfish desire to consciously plan a pregnancy with such a high probability of complications?

Should blindness disqualify her from having a child? No. Does diabetes? It's risky and medically ill advised. Pregnancy at 62? Again, ill advised. Now lets stack the age, blindness and diabetes on top of eachother. So it was her caring and loving spirit that moved this woman to bear yet another child despite the odds tragedy was in order?

Yes Sovrana, many of us can fathom the mystical, mythical state of motherhood you so clearly feel is your secret domain as uterus bearing human; even us dumb guys. Tell me this, how many babies must this woman bear before she's complete? I posit motherhood, or better yet parenthood, is less about the ability to bear children than it is compassion and selflesness.

Which catagory does Mrs. Wulf fit? And you?

Phreon

[the happy prole]

Does diabetes? It's risky and medically ill advised. Pregnancy at 62? Again, ill advised. Now lets stack the age, blindness and diabetes on top of eachother. So it was her caring and loving spirit that moved this woman to bear yet another child despite the odds tragedy was in order?

I'd agree with you had she gone against medical advice, but it sounds like the doctors felt good enough about it to give her the go-ahead.

If I were 62 and blind, I'd be cranky and probably looking to punch my own ticket out of here instead of adding someone to the population. Then again, I wouldn't try synchronized swimming back in 1960 if I were blind. That's why I'd be a shitty parent. But I'm not her.

She obviously has a very different perspective about life, and things that we might see as severe hardships don't bother her. If you've grown up blind and you still have a zest for life at 62, then you probably don't think the possibility of growing up without a mom is such a big deal. And if her kids inherit or learn that same perspective, they'll be fine.

[Shlep]

And I find it rather entertaining that you accuse me of mind-reading everytime I nail it. The financial aspect is not only relevant to your point, but by all you have ever posted on these boards, it is relevant to every fabric of your being. It's all about you....and the burden that others place on you.

Could you please produce the part where she mentioned how any alleged financial burden affected her or anyone else? I can't seem to find it, leading me to believe that her assertion that you're making stuff up as you go along is quite correct.

You have this tendency also Shlep. psst! This pregnancy, has nothing to do with you.

While you're at it, maybe you could refer me to the part where I said this womans' decision to bring a child into this world had anything to do with me.

Very canny of you to highlight all the instances where I said "I." This shows quite clearly, to the extent that it was not already perfectly clear, that I was stating my opinion on what I thought was an ill-advised decision on this womans' part. I am not sure where it is exactly where I mentioned anything about it affecting me.

Fact of the matter is, I did not.

Furthermore, I fail to see where I should think this woman made a smart decision ipso facto she apparently put some thought into it and furthermore spent a lot of money bringing her plan to fruition.

[Shlep]

I have thought about it. I understand better than you what she faces.

Speaking as a blind woman in her 60s?

What burden is she placing on this child?

None, I'm sure. I'll just bet that as a blind diabetic octegenarian she'll pose no complication to her child as he/she enters young adulthood.

She's blind, so she shouldn't have children?

Never said that, merely that it exacerbated the situation.

She's older than you so she shouldn't have children?

"Older than me"? We're not talking 37 or 40 or 55, Sovrana.

The child (with a wealth of siblings) may be forced to care for this parent?

And just what is the financial status of her sibs?

That's what children do...that's what parents do...that's what people do...care for others.

I'm aware of this, Sovrana. My maternal grandmother was an active woman into her 80s. Eventually, her kids took turns caring for her...when they were middle-aged, professionaly stable, and financially secure, not when they were trying to decide whether to go to college or not. When her health declined to the point where she required 24-hour care, they paid to put her in an assisted living facility...how many 18-year-olds have deep enough pockets to do this?

[Phreon]

I'd agree with you had she gone against medical advice, but it sounds like the doctors felt good enough about it to give her the go-ahead.

If I were 62 and blind, I'd be cranky and probably looking to punch my own ticket out of here instead of adding someone to the population. Then again, I wouldn't try synchronized swimming back in 1960 if I were blind. That's why I'd be a shitty parent. But I'm not her.

She obviously has a very different perspective about life, and things that we might see as severe hardships don't bother her. If you've grown up blind and you still have a zest for life at 62, then you probably don't think the possibility of growing up without a mom is such a big deal. And if her kids inherit or learn that same perspective, they'll be fine.

You may be right. In fact, I hope you're right.

My point however, is that she was not being particularly responsible when deciding to have another pregnancy against the odds. Pluck and moxy would been worth jack shit if the child was born deformed or worse, it or she died. She gambled with hers and her unborn child's life. She played the odds and won, but I don't believe doing so was much of a caring or selfless act. Doesn't sound very loving, does it?

How many kids are enough?

Phreon

[despondent]

I think that anyone that has the desire to be a loving, selfless parent should seriously consider the option of adoption. Why bring another sentient being into to existence with all the the accompanying difficulties of that sentient existence when instead you can provide guidance, nurturing, and love to an already existing child that desperately needs it.

[the happy prole]

You're probably right. My point however, is that she was not being particularly responsible when deciding to have another pregnancy against the odds. Pluck and moxy would been worth jack shit if the child was born deformed or worse, it or her died. She gambled with hers and her unborn child's life. She played the odds and won, but I don't believe doing so was much of a caring or selfless act. Doesn't sound very loving, does it?

How many kids are enough?

Phreon

But she's "deformed" herself and she appears quite happy. I don't think the risk of deformity or death is as big a deal to her as it is us. And I can't say she's necessarily wrong. I know people with what I deem as terrible handicaps who are quite happy to be alive and enjoying themselves much more than I do.

How many kids are enough? Well, personally I often think that ONE is already too many. If I did have a kid, I would adopt. But her other kids don't seem particularly disgruntled (at least on record) about either their lives or her decision so I have no reason to question her ability or motives. And just by virtue of being born a wealthy American to a (seemingly) loving mother gives that kid a leg up on 75% of the world population.

I don't think this is as much about politics as it is your philosophy on life. I get the feeling that you, me, shlep, and purple octopus are somewhere on the low end of the "overflowing love for humanity and the human condition" scale.

About all I can say is that I disagree with her decision. I can't go so far as to say it was a selfish one, or that it is destined to turn out poorly.

[Sovrana]

Tell me this, how many babies must this woman bear before she's complete?

I don't know. What do you mean by "complete." Why do you think this has anything to do with being "complete.' You see Phreon, this is not my choice to make for her and neither is it yours or purple's. So while you continue to try to present me as someone who thinks she knows all, I know only enough to know that I determine my standards for me. And I don't think it is my place to set standards for her.

[lutz]

Oh boy, I really need to start getting more sleep... just glanced at the thread title and thought it said "62-Year-Old MAN Gives Birth".. :o

[purple_octopus]

I have thought about it. I understand better than you what she faces.
Why do you think you "understand better" than others, just because you have a working twat?

[Sovrana]

Could you please produce the part where she mentioned how any alleged financial burden affected her or anyone else? I can't seem to find it, leading me to believe that her assertion that you're making stuff up as you go along is quite correct.

I wasn't referring to anything she specifically said in this thread. In fact I think I made myself pretty clear that I was referring to other such debates with p-o. The bottom line for her has always been the bottom line ($$).

[akip]

i know a woman who's in her 50s, who has 9 kids aged 10 to 30+, and she always looks tired. actually, i like her a lot 'cause she's got this very sardonic sense of humor about it---she told me she's gotta buy a new sofa every three years 'cause her kids have destroyed the "old" one by then. one of the twins (the youngest ones) told me, "guess what? i jumped out a second floor window one time and broke my foot!" sounds like utter mayhem. i get the feeling she didn't have 9 kids 'cause she wanted 9 kids---i think she's just a good catholic. but her kids are all in hockey (those little girls are pretty tough!) and they're all getting by in school, so they're doing just about as well as anybody.

anyway, that's just a tangent. people have kids for various reasons, and in this day and age when kids are a financial liability, those reasons are more irrational than ever.

the bottom line really is, that old lady, the 62-year-old blind diabetic, wanted the kid. so the kid will probably be okay---a little twisted, maybe, but okay. hey, i'm a little twisted too.

the bigger problem for me is still the same---the prospect of many, many more women being forced to have kids they don't want. i'm more concerned about that impact on society than one old lady irrationally having a baby. 'cause nature and good sense prevail for the vast majority on her end of the age scale.

[Homsar]

Let's not forget that just 3 and a half years ago this woman gave birth to another child. But I wonder if every pregnancy of hers was successful...

P_O, you were right. As Dubyah and Homer would say, I'm from a nucular family, and my age is no secret.

They way y'all talk, it looks like WOXY fans are a dying breed, what with no one wanting to have kids. Maybe they're like scientologists, who have to convert to keep the faith alive.

BALETED!

Damn it! Now I'm going to have to make something up! It's a good thing I kind of remember what you said. Something about how one can be opposed to abortion yet support bearing kids into bad situations.

Would you rather all the babies that are potentially being born into hopeless or horrible situations be aborted until we can finally educate people about what it means to have a baby? It does seem kind of convenient to get rid of the mistake instead of messing up another person, sort of contain the trouble, or something. I guess I've just developed a strong aversion to killing anything. That's the real challenge though: getting to the point where people do things responsibly and by thinking of others.

[Shlep]

I wasn't referring to anything she specifically said in this thread. In fact I think I made myself pretty clear that I was referring to other such debates with p-o. The bottom line for her has always been the bottom line ($$).

This would be what is commonly referred to as a "strawman argument."

[despondent]

Would you rather all the babies that are potentially being born into hopeless or horrible situations be aborted until we can finally educate people about what it means to have a baby? It does seem kind of convenient to get rid of the mistake instead of messing up another person, sort of contain the trouble, or something. I guess I've just developed a strong aversion to killing anything. That's the real challenge though: getting to the point where people do things responsibly and by thinking of others. I'm still against abortion...even if I know without a doubt that the child is going to be born into less than desirable conditions. Once a life is created, that life has every right to exist. It's up to all of the rest of us (and our karma) to at the very least do no harm to that life and at most help that life to grow and thrive. However, many people do cause harm. There is obvious, blatent harm that we all recognize. There is also subtle, covert harm that is sometimes even committed under the guise of love and compassion. There are people out there that are capable of being good parents, but this is just a fraction of everyone at large.

[Homsar]

Um, no that's not what it was about. My post was about state control over reproduction.

I deleted my post because I do not wish to be apart of this conversation.

Oh great, and I was racking my brains trying to create a response to a statement that never existed! Allrighty then.

[Homsar]

I'm still against abortion...even if I know without a doubt that the child is going to be born into less than desirable conditions. Once a life is created, that life has every right to exist. It's up to all of the rest of us (and our karma) to at the very least do no harm to that life and at most help that life to grow and thrive. However, many people do cause harm. There is obvious, blatent harm that we all recognize. There is also subtle, covert harm that is sometimes even committed under the guise of love and compassion. There are people out there that are capable of being good parents, but this is just a fraction of everyone at large.

So do we have to choose between abortion and raising kids badly? I say both choices suck, but what are we to do? The best we can? That may be part of the harm.

[markalot]

...but mainly because I detest humanity as a group.


No you don't, and you know it.

[Homsar]

the ability to create without having the ability to destroy

But do we have to exercise that ability?

What are the roles of government and religion in individualist societies? Individuals don't always know what's best for them.

[despondent]

My hope is that there is nothing after death.


Meditate on this and be set free

[despondent]

Despo, thats hypocritical. If you believe that we cannot have the ability to create without having the ability to destroy, then you cannot be against legal abortion. You can not agree with the concept of abortion but legally we have to have it. If the state tells us when we can kill embryos and when we can not kill embryos, then it can also tell us when we can create embryo's and not create embryo's (this is for Homsar as well).

And for the record, embryos and children do not make the decision to be born or unborn that decision is made for them. As a staunch individualist, for me this is wrong. Decisions need to be made by the individual, not by the group for the individual. In this sense, I am very much against reproduction all-together.

And that brings the circle around because that makes me a hypocrite. You can't have the individual without the group and vice versa. This is probably the paradox I have the most difficulty with...but mainly because I detest humanity as a group.

"Just live that life.
It doesn't matter whether it is life or hell,
life of the hungry ghost,
life of the animal,
it's okay;
just live that life, see.
And as a matter of fact
no other way.
Where you stand, where you are,
that's where your life is right there,
regardless of how painful it is
or how enjoyable it is.
That's what it is.

That condition never continues forever.
You can even say that it changes completely
in less than a second.
This life, death.
I really believe that
when you really see what your life is,
you understand what death is.
Actually that is Buddha's teaching.
He said, "Since there is the Buddha
in the midst of life and death
there is no life and death." "

---Taizan Maezumi (1931-1995)